Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The point I'm trying to make is:

1) Skeletons work best in a point-denial role.
2) Point-denial is "better" (more efficient in a wider array of circumstances) if the skeletons are more durable.
3) Parry saves make skeletons more durable than if they're able to kill a single infantry model each turn.

Therefore, parry saves make skeletons better within the role that they're best at. I understand that, in your example, both units lasted the whole game. However, YOU don't understand that there is a greater number of additional scenarios in which that won't be the case, and THAT'S what I'm arguing (and why I brought up point denial).

If the VC player has a unit of skeletons and a unit of Black Knights in combat with WoC and loses combat because of the casualties that the skeletons are giving up, then the unit of Black Knights will NOT last the entire game even if the skeletons do - they have less models (probably), they crumble at an identical rate, and they don't raise as fast. If you can somehow reduce the number of casualties taken by the skeletons, this impact is reduced. Spears don't do that, because 1 extra casualty won't reduce the number of attacks that the enemy unit makes (and certainly not at initiative 2). Parry saves do. Math has NOT shown that the Black Knights are better-off if the skeletons have spears.

Of course they do! That's no compromise for me.

I would consider taking spears in many cases, if spears are free.
One of the few cases I will hesitate, however, is with Undead, because of the Unstable rule.
That said, I will hesitate to take spears, not refuse to. And that is because there is such a small difference that I think sending an Elite unit into a combat with Skeletons is a bad idea, unless you are as sure as you can be that the combat will end in one round.

And on the topic of point-denial, it's simple: Parry saves help you towards that goal better than spears. The earlier posts depicted the mathematical averages; there's still room for some good and bad rolls. And in that case, Parry saves further your aims, where spears do not.

As far as impolite responses, sir, I'm a little surprised. Even if someone had posted with the intent to offend you, what did you expect to happen after overt verbal attacks and implied profanity? This forum is, as far as the internet goes, a pretty classy joint. That stuff doesn't fly 'round here.

Tan i see your points. I see that both of these comparisons are situational. Its hard to argue a point without sighting specific examples. I use math. Which is a universal truth. Others use conjecture, opinion, exp, and popularity. Its been posted over and over that durability is better yet no one has given any examples other than just that 3 is better than none at turn 6. And assume just because theres a parry that they will last longer. Ive provided statistical evidence to the contrary yet you choose to ignore. Ive run the numbers on greys which were off but once corrected still yielded the same results.
Frankly im tired. Im going to use skeles with spears and you are going to use skeles with swords. I know this.

In conclusion, If we are to sway each other we all need to agree on a representative sample for our skeles to go up against. Ive provided empire halberds, WoC and, S4 T4 4+ generic warriors. All of which, tarpitted, provided no VPs to enemy, lasted the entire game (5 turns), killed more, had higher combat res, and looked cooler doing it. Whether you decide to flank (hammer the unit) depends on the game situation. Im sure there are doubts when swords are involved as well. If you do hammer flank there will be less enemy (not by much) to deal with and higher combat res. your choice. But enough with hypotheticals
If no one will accept emperical data then theres a bigger problem that i can not resolve. (btw Global warming does exist and we all are contributing to it).
Do not lecture me on roles and tactics for they are not shared by all and will dilute the discussion further. I will continue to advocate spears until there is statistical evidence that shows otherwise.

Im sorry warp for my response earlier in the posts. I took yours the wrong way.

my god a guy doesnt go on for a few days and theres a huge debate going on lol well i've got a lot to consider with my skeletons so thanks all

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Tan i see your points. I see that both of these comparisons are situational. Its hard to argue a point without sighting specific examples. I use math. Which is a universal truth. Others use conjecture, opinion, exp, and popularity. Its been posted over and over that durability is better yet no one has given any examples other than just that 3 is better than none at turn 6. And assume just because theres a parry that they will last longer. Ive provided statistical evidence to the contrary yet you choose to ignore. Ive run the numbers on greys which were off but once corrected still yielded the same results.
Frankly im tired. Im going to use skeles with spears and you are going to use skeles with swords. I know this.

In conclusion, If we are to sway each other we all need to agree on a representative sample for our skeles to go up against. Ive provided empire halberds, WoC and, S4 T4 4+ generic warriors. All of which, tarpitted, provided no VPs to enemy, lasted the entire game (5 turns), killed more, had higher combat res, and looked cooler doing it. Whether you decide to flank (hammer the unit) depends on the game situation. Im sure there are doubts when swords are involved as well. If you do hammer flank there will be less enemy (not by much) to deal with and higher combat res. your choice. But enough with hypotheticals
If no one will accept emperical data then theres a bigger problem that i can not resolve. (btw Global warming does exist and we all are contributing to it).
Do not lecture me on roles and tactics for they are not shared by all and will dilute the discussion further. I will continue to advocate spears until there is statistical evidence that shows otherwise.

Im sorry warp for my response earlier in the posts. I took yours the wrong way.

Again, man, it's not a math debate. I agree with your math. You agree with your math. There's no debate that your numbers are correct. Stop acting as though my points are irrelevant because I haven't posted an equation. My point is, essentially, that you're not seeing the bigger picture.

In my previous post, I listed the following:

1) Skeletons work best in a point-denial role.
2) Point-denial is "better" (more efficient in a wider array of circumstances) if the skeletons are more durable.
3) Parry saves make skeletons more durable than if they're able to kill a single infantry model each turn.

Do you disagree with proposition 1?
Do you disagree with proposition 2?
Do you disagree with proposition 3?

If you disagree with prop 1, I can focus my efforts on making points that may convince you of the value of point denial, why skeletons are best suited to this role, and how that suiting affects their value in points cost and on the tabletop during a game.

If you disagree with prop 2, I can present some math-styled arguments.

If you disagree with prop 3, I can present some other math-styled arguments of a different variety.

For your talk about universal truths, you continue to ignore the fact that a chance at less casualties is better for point-denial. You've also, oddly, almost completely avoided addressing the points regarding skeletons being best suited to this role.

@IneedVC2500: it's all good.

@Grimmor: don't consider too hard; we can all agree that the difference is really, really tiny.

@Tangent: your 1-2-3 presentation is elegant and to the point. Well done.

I agree with your points

Thanks, and excellent. Keep in mind, I'm not haranguing your usage of units that are not the "best." I, myself, use units in both fantasy and 40k that are generally considered to be actively bad. It is through discussions like this that everyone (myself included) gains a better understanding of tactics which, ultimately, makes the game more fun (in my opinion).

Indeed

Really, WS2 T3 5+ save, with or without parry really doesn't make a difference.
Skeletons die so fast, parry vs no parry doesn't matter.
If it comes close to mattering, you should have taken more skeletons.


I'd say take what you think looks better.

o.O
In competitive play especially there is a big difference.

In competitive play I think you won't see too many skeletons of either type unless the front rank is full of characters, especially wraiths. In that case it doesn't really matter what the skeletons are armed with.

I've only recenty got back into warhammer after looong gap, and am looking at VC.

Whilst the above discussion was interesting, and I can see both sides - either way seems pretty marginal.

What I am more interested in is why skeletons in the first place?

If you are wanting a tarpit (and that seems the argument for being pro-shields) then are zombies not better?

Sure zombies die faster, but if something can kill 70 zombies in one go then presumably it would have had no issue with 40 skellies for the same points?

Crunching the numbers it appears that in most cases the extra numbers of the zombies cancels out (or more) the extra casualties compared to skeletons. The only place skeletons appear to be better is where you are taking on enemy dross tarpits as well, i.e. WS3 S3 T3 where the skellies armor works to full affect and the extra WS they get makes a difference. At WS 4 or as enemy S goes up, or you face impact/stomp attacks the zombies get better relatively. Against hard hitting enemy units the zombies look more likely to survive that 1 round of combat due to sheer numbers, isn't that what you want tarpits to do?

Add in that zombies don't need a master necro to boost them beyond start size, and get twice as many models per IoN and they look better, if there is a mortis engine near by they gain from Regen where as shield skellies don't. A lodestone cart can make that reroll more useful (cos you roll 2D6). OK non of those are truely certain, but they all add to extra survivability which skellies don't share to the same degree (ok, spear ones gain regen the same).

puree wrote:
I've only recenty got back into warhammer after looong gap, and am looking at VC.

Whilst the above discussion was interesting, and I can see both sides - either way seems pretty marginal.

What I am more interested in is why skeletons in the first place?

If you are wanting a tarpit (and that seems the argument for being pro-shields) then are zombies not better?

Sure zombies die faster, but if something can kill 70 zombies in one go then presumably it would have had no issue with 40 skellies for the same points?

Crunching the numbers it appears that in most cases the extra numbers of the zombies cancels out (or more) the extra casualties compared to skeletons. The only place skeletons appear to be better is where you are taking on enemy dross tarpits as well, i.e. WS3 S3 T3 where the skellies armor works to full affect and the extra WS they get makes a difference. At WS 4 or as enemy S goes up, or you face impact/stomp attacks the zombies get better relatively. Against hard hitting enemy units the zombies look more likely to survive that 1 round of combat due to sheer numbers, isn't that what you want tarpits to do?

Add in that zombies don't need a master necro to boost them beyond start size, and get twice as many models per IoN and they look better, if there is a mortis engine near by they gain from Regen where as shield skellies don't. A lodestone cart can make that reroll more useful (cos you roll 2D6). OK non of those are truely certain, but they all add to extra survivability which skellies don't share to the same degree (ok, spear ones gain regen the same).

Screaming banner.
Both will get chewed up by anything remotely killy but against units that are only marginally better the screaming banner can by you (a least) an extra turn in combat for every failed fear check.

Case in point; I was at a tourney yesterday and a failed fear check mean I beat and overrun a unit of clanrats.

Screaming Banner is one (good) reason. You can't make the Fear Bomb with zombies.

Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

Another is that, believe it or not, some people don't like the look of GW zombies. I do, but some don't.

Another is ease of painting. In my opinion, skeletons are both faster and easier to paint than zombies, and on top of that, you have to paint a LOT more zombies if you're going to use them over skeletons.

And just so you know, it's hand weapon skeletons that get parry saves, not shield skeletons. All skeletons have shields as spears are one-handed weapons.

Also, you don't need a Master Necro to get Master of the Dead - you can buy that for a regular hero-level Necromancer.

 Tangent wrote:
Screaming Banner is one (good) reason. You can't make the Fear Bomb with zombies.

Aye that seems reasonable, Haven't got into the stuff deep enough yet to look at all the magic item effects etc.

Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

OK. Though I would have thought the best place for a hero type was more likely a hammer unit, rather than a tarpit unit.

Another is that, believe it or not, some people don't like the look of GW zombies. I do, but some don't.

Another is ease of painting. In my opinion, skeletons are both faster and easier to paint than zombies, and on top of that, you have to paint a LOT more zombies if you're going to use them over skeletons.

I realised aethestics/painting will always be a reason, I often make such choices in games as well, but the thread was more about what is best in game.

And just so you know, it's hand weapon skeletons that get parry saves, not shield skeletons. All skeletons have shields as spears are one-handed weapons.

Also, you don't need a Master Necro to get Master of the Dead - you can buy that for a regular hero-level Necromancer.

Yup - I knew both of those, just sloppy wording by me.

puree wrote:
Aye that seems reasonable, Haven't got into the stuff deep enough yet to look at all the magic item effects etc.

Actually, I guess you COULD do the Fear Bomb with zombies. You'd have to make a hero Vamp into your BSB and then give him the Screaming Banner and the right powers, then dump him into the zombies. Though, I guess the reason people don't do it is because that makes that Vampire really expensive, and he's all but guaranteed to die in a unit of zombies with no points for combat powers and half his magic item allowance (which would go towards weapons or armor) sunk into the banner.

puree wrote:
OK. Though I would have thought the best place for a hero type was more likely a hammer unit, rather than a tarpit unit.

Meh, it kinda depends. If your hero-type is a rank-and-file-eating machine, then you could do worse than putting him in a tarpit especially if you have a hard time getting the right match-up. You also might not have any place else to put him if you're not running other units in which he would fit. IE, your hammer units are all chariots or monsters or whatever. And just about the only way to make the Fear Bomb complete is with a hero Vampire, who most conveniently fits in the same unit as the Screaming Banner.

Yea i attempted to argue that zombies were better at tarpitting but i felt it was a tad off topic.

I like zombies for tarpitting, too.

 Tangent wrote:


Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

I can't really think of a situation where you would be in danger of losing your vampire lord to an enemy challange. Not many things can stand up to a tooled out Vampire.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Tangent wrote:


Another is that Zombies don't have champions and Skeletons do, which means (with Skeletons) you have a model that can accept a challenge in place of your other heroes, allowing them to chew into enemy rank and file for an additional turn.

I can't really think of a situation where you would be in danger of losing your vampire lord to an enemy challange. Not many things can stand up to a tooled out Vampire.

I agree there aren't many times you'd be worried about him dying. Though there are still times where being sucked into the challenge could severely cost you. Unkillable Dreadlord, HE wizard with ethereal magic weapon denial combo etc.

It's not that the Vampire is worried about losing the challenge, it's that the Vampire would prefer to kill as many rank-and-file as possible and being in a challenge would prevent that. My Vamp Lord with an Ogre Blade, Red Fury, and Quickblood averages 8-9 wounds per round against rank-and-file. If he's forced to fight a 1 would champion in a challenge, the most he can contribute to combat res is 6.

 Tangent wrote:
It's not that the Vampire is worried about losing the challenge, it's that the Vampire would prefer to kill as many rank-and-file as possible and being in a challenge would prevent that. My Vamp Lord with an Ogre Blade, Red Fury, and Quickblood averages 8-9 wounds per round against rank-and-file. If he's forced to fight a 1 would champion in a challenge, the most he can contribute to combat res is 6.

And it isn't the loss of 2-3 wounds for combat res, it's that you didn't take out another rank to break steadfast quicker.

-Matt

Right-o!

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Ineedvc2500 wrote:
Spear hordes. They have potential to deal more wounds. Id rather kill what im fighting and move on than get stuck in multiple rounds of combat. It also depends on your use of magic. I only use IoN so i dont really care about durability

Sorry but you have no idea how to use skeletons. They are not a combat block and shouldn't ever be used as one. At most they are a tarpit that can take one or two enemies with them per turn. If you want to run them 10 wide, 4 deep, give them spears and try to get danse and vigor off on them any turn they are in combat you might have a chance of winning, but that's a huge investment for a sub par block that will require a lot of your power dice to work (assuming you even get the spells off). As for IoN and durability, two different things, they are more durable with shields. That is a fact. IoN will raise skellies back, trying to run them as a combat unit will mean you need to raise a lot though, the parry saves will save you 1 or 2 every turn which is 2 or 4 less you need to raise.

The only reason to run skellies with spears is if you know they'll be getting the mortis engines regen save.

I totally agree with this, to use skelies effectively they need to be tarpitts. They are to weak and expensive to take in a horde formation with spears. Use them wisely and a skeleton unit can be a graveyard for your opponent to charge into.

If your intent is to make sure the Skeletons get charged, I think spears are good. In all other situations, I would think hand weapon and shield is better.

Well I would say that if you are willing to risk your skeletons as a tarpitt then there is no point in splashing out on upgrades that won't really help or be cost effective. Tarpits aren't there to kill things they are there to hold them up...

Im not trying to stir things up again but a tarpit that has a slight advantage in combat is worth exploring. I argued effectiveness while my opps argued durability which was informative however math wasnt winning anyone over. I play differently than they do. When IoN went bubble and we got a new combat lord i chose a different style. I found through play testing that the skeles with spears were lasting the whole game, killing more per game, denying VPs, and tarpitting. Yet our discussion hinged on 3 skeles vs no skeles in close combat with 20 marked WoC on turn 5 with no magic. the math was wrong and once it was recalculated again the skeles with spears lasted the whole game, killing more, tarpitting, and denying VPs. I gave up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regardless there are times in battle i wished i had parry but there are times i wished i had spears too. Theres are hypotheticals that show scenarios were both shine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shine is not appropriate they both suck just sometimes less

I run skele's with spears because of two simple reasons

1.) I love a block of troops with spears in the air
2.) The previous owner plastic glued them that way

However, I kind of would prefer them to be sword and board simply to make them a tarpit unit. I don't expect them to do much with their pokes. Alas, I don't have that option, so vigour mortis and a wall of stab is the path I walk!

Pardon my extreme ignorance, but what's the conflict between shields and spears? It seems to me that since spears are only one-handed, you still get the parry save in close combat. Is this an incorrect assumption?

EDIT: Ah, nevermind. I've just looked at the rulebook again, and I believe it specifies that parry saves are only awarded with hand weapons and shields, not special weapons such as spears. Sorry to intrude!